If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

I don't know nabber. The op said that it would take a tiny amount to kill a whole bunch of bees, then you twisted it up by saying that if it was the particular chemical that YOU chose then it would take a lot more of it, and you would have to make them eat it first anyway, so strike three. Nabber wins. I would ask if I got any of that wrong, but I already re read it, and I didn't.

And yes I understand that toxicity was measured by mixing the poison with syrup and feeding it to the bees, and farmers don't do that, so it must be harmless if you follow the directions.

I also understand that these chemicals are insecticides, and bees are insects. Some of them act systemically, by making the entire plant more or less an insecticide - thus killing pests that try to eat those plants. Whether it is true or not it makes sense that bees which gather pollen or nectar from such a plant could be carrying tiny doses of poison back to the colony. And true or not it also makes sense that when that hive ingests that poison while also under seasonal stress, that it could cause winter colony collapse.

Neonicitinoids may not have a thing to do with the high percent of colony loss we have seen this year. I certainly can not prove that they do, but you can't prove that they don't. And no one who is in any position to do anything about it cares one bit about what either one of us thinks.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by Luterra

If 1/35,000th of the amount of neonics in an acre planted with treated corn seed is enough to kill 60,000 bees, then we need to consider not only direct routes of exposure, but also more complicated ones (e.g. bees picking up imidacloprid dust while in the air, planting dust settling on adjacent blooms, bees collecting pollen from corn plants grown from treated seed, etc.). If neonics were 10- or 100-fold less toxic, these pathways wouldn't be of concern. .

I suppose that I could go on to explain how to quantify the probability of completing a pathway and how to assess the risk of any particular pathway being completed, but I am growing weary of this tedious exchange. Yaaaawn. Good night and sweet dreams.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

I was under impression that bees sometime actually eat pollen (pollen cakes?)... if pollen contaminated ....

One last answer because this is a question that is marginally worth responding to.

Bees actually may, at sometimes, eat some pollen that may be contaminated, but the probability and occurrence of this route of exposure being completed is extremely low; based on the available data. Certainly not enough to cause CCD (whatever the heck that is).

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

I was under impression that bees sometime actually eat pollen (pollen cakes?)... if pollen contaminated ....

As for ricin - don't tell me. It is evil thing. I worked with it. One single molecule (yes!) kills a cell!

Mark, many thanks for interesting analysis - very educational! I did not think, it is so bad!

jeb532 - thank you for initiating this thread - I learned something new here!

To be fair, ricin is about 20-fold more human-toxic than imidacloprid is bee-toxic, but they are in the same general range. If you can treat a seed and have the resulting plant be toxic to insects, you are working with a potent poison.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

in california they do a lot of testing of neonic pesticide on bees. At low doses it affects bees the same as nicotine (which it is derived from) does to humans. In that form it is a stimulant and actually makes bees more productive (smarter, more alert, quicker).

1. The dose makes the poison—field doses from seed treatments are typically (except in the case of planting dust) very low. They are intentionally designed to be so.
2. Bees metabolize neonicotinoids quickly[11], similar to the manner in which humans quickly metabolize nicotine, so that they appear to tolerate small doses well.
3. Bees appear to find neonicotinoid residues distasteful[12], and avoid drinking highly contaminated nectar. However, they may well bring home highly contaminated pollen or dust.
4. Just because an insecticide goes systemic in a plant, that doesn’t mean that bees are constantly exposed to that product. Treated plants only produce contaminated nectar or pollen for a relatively short period of time each season. The rest of the season the bees would ignore those plants.
5. Several surveys of trapped pollen found that bees in agricultural areas often mainly collect pollen from plant species other than the treated crops. These findings suggest that bees may be avoiding the treated crops, and that nectar and pollen from the untreated plants would tend to dilute the insecticide residues. However, if the treated crop is the only plant in bloom, then the colony would be exposed to a greater degree (note, however, that colonies foraging on virtually undiluted treated canola appear to do fine).
6. The above factors would lead to the dilution of the insecticide within the hive.
7. Then there is the “colony effect.” Even when fed extremely high doses of imidacloprid over a period of weeks or months, colonies may continue to thrive (Pettis 2012; Lu 2012; Galen Dively, pers comm).
8. This is not to say that exposure to high levels of planting dust can’t result in sudden loss of a large portion of a colony’s adult population!

Originally Posted by David LaFerney

I don't know nabber. The op said that it would take a tiny amount to kill a whole bunch of bees, then you twisted it up by saying that if it was the particular chemical that YOU chose then it would take a lot more of it, and you would have to make them eat it first anyway, so strike three. Nabber wins. I would ask if I got any of that wrong, but I already re read it, and I didn't.

And yes I understand that toxicity was measured by mixing the poison with syrup and feeding it to the bees, and farmers don't do that, so it must be harmless if you follow the directions.

I also understand that these chemicals are insecticides, and bees are insects. Some of them act systemically, by making the entire plant more or less an insecticide - thus killing pests that try to eat those plants. Whether it is true or not it makes sense that bees which gather pollen or nectar from such a plant could be carrying tiny doses of poison back to the colony. And true or not it also makes sense that when that hive ingests that poison while also under seasonal stress, that it could cause winter colony collapse.

Neonicitinoids may not have a thing to do with the high percent of colony loss we have seen this year. I certainly can not prove that they do, but you can't prove that they don't. And no one who is in any position to do anything about it cares one bit about what either one of us thinks.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by Nabber86

In short, what does all of the data show? Neonics are highly toxic to bees and if ingested, they die. Nothing more nothing less. Stating that x mass of neonics can kill y number of bees is completely meaningless outside of the context of exposure routes and pathways. Please note also that this is the only point that I am trying to make in the context of this thread!

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

And here is where the paralysis of analysis becomes a tactic to avoid accountability.

We cannot afford to cloud over for a problem that needs to be addressed. Nabber86; your desire to raise awareness of inappropriate calculations, although cloaked is cynicism and contempt, is quite impressive. I also admire your desire to preserve the fidelity of the scientific method and the purity of the Hard Science. We all could stand to embrace more precision so the facts are truly facts, and not just sensationalized speculations.

Fact  These chemicals exist, are used where bees frequent, and are highly toxic when ingested by bees.
Fact  Bees eat, and bees feed other bees.
Question  Do the toxins exist on food sources that bees eat . . . most likely.
Question  Do bees eat items on which the toxins are present . . . most likely.
Question  Are bees ingesting the toxins . . . most likely.
Fact  A very, very, very small measure of these toxins can kill a bee when ingested.
Fact  The toxins are made to kill insects
Fact  Bees are insects.
Question  How much toxin is UNHEALTHY for bees . . . not certain
Question  How much toxin is actually ingested by bees . . . not certain

However, no matter what variables exist in the study, measure, and calculation of this enormous problem, at least people are thinking deeply and willing to search out the etiology. The set of causes, or manner of causation, of this condition deserves some sensationalism in order to awaken the minds of humanity. Just like you are raising the awareness of others to calculation errors, raising the awareness of people to this very serious pandemic is also worthy; more than worthy of theater. Drama draws attention. Yes, this drama must be based on accurate fact. However, instead of plowing down others in what appears to be apathetic arrogance, how about utilizing your prowess to assist the goal at hand; to stop CCD and preserve the honey bee? Isnt that what this is really about? In short, we can either be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Choose wisely.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

BW: While I agree with much of what you are saying, it's important to note that aside from some confirmed cases of bee losses from planter dust (a problem that has supposedly been solved) bees have no direct exposure to these seed coatings. Yet all these threads seem to start with the underlying assumption that neonics are the cause of massive bee deaths despite the fact that the evidence proving this is virtually nonexistent. These are all still theories. The fact that these chemicals are so wide spread in their use yet many beekeepers still have great success in building strong bees says to me that bee health is a very, very complex issue.

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

You are right Jim - it is clearly a complex issue. Mites, 2 kinds of nosema, all manner of chemicals, pollution, SHB, viruses that we haven't even heard of, monoculture ag, heat, drought, and dearth - most, if not all - of these things are probably involved in high colony loss numbers. It's too complex to say that any one thing is the cause, or that any one thing is not a factor. But we will probably quibble about the details from now on - cause that's what people do.

If the internet has taught us anything it is that when someone says "my thing isn't what's at fault in this broad issue it's everything else that is the problem" to take that with a grain of salt at least. The same goes for those who blame big problems on one person, or one group of people.

Most likely all of these things are going to continue to affect bees and bee keepers for the foreseeable future. Our options are very limited in what we can do to adapt - but most likely adapt we will.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Wow this was an interesting thread, hats off to nabber for picking on the math and not rolling over and ignoring it!!!
AND the others who are pointing out errors...

We also want to point out neonics being leathal, but that is not even close to the only "poisen" spread on a huge basis daily. from spraying mosquitoes for west nile to anhydrous for corn.....we as humans do spread chemicals. BUT we look closely at the impacts.. spraying mosquitoes doesn't effect bees because we take due care. same for corn seeds... due care and tons of math have been done to study what really matters The UPTAKE of the chem in question..... Doing silly math to point out it takes less than a lb (being generous) to kill all the bees is a moot point...... getting it to them is another matter. As mention... how much Rican would it take to kill all the humans?? small amount also.. but worthless math as its not going to happen.....

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Well....looks like I accomplished exactly what I started out to do....get some serious discussion going. So I remembered the toxicity quantity wrong by a factor of 2 or 4...or even 10.....

What if I'm really off by a factor of 1000 and it doesn't take 2 tablespoons of a neonic to kill all the bees in Texas...but 20 POUNDS.

Boils down to a really simple question....Do I really want that around my bees? Uh......NO.

Lets see if I can really fire up Nabber and mention the soil latency issue...which I have seen stated as 1,300 plus days depending on the soil type.

I've recently seen a figure quoted for degradation in the soil of 60% per year.....i.e....of what ever percentage makes it to the soil, 60% is still there a year later....36% two years later...22% three years later...etc.

Assuming the same field and dose rate per year, the second year you get another 100% dose...so now you have 160% soil level (100% year 2 +60% of year 1)

Looks like bioaccumlulation to me. OK so lets say its not 60% degradation per year, but 30%...still doesn't matter....the only way it wouldn't bioaccumulate is if it degrades completely before the year's next application....

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Boils down to a really simple question....Do I really want that around my bees? Uh......NO.

Lets see if I can really fire up Nabber and mention the soil latency issue...which I have seen stated as 1,300 plus days depending on the soil type.

I've recently seen a figure quoted for degradation in the soil of 60% per year.....i.e....of what ever percentage makes it to the soil, 60% is still there a year later....36% two years later...22% three years later...etc.

Assuming the same field and dose rate per year, the second year you get another 100% dose...so now you have 160% soil level (100% year 2 +60% of year 1)

Looks like bioaccumlulation to me. OK so lets say its not 60% degradation per year, but 30%...still doesn't matter....the only way it wouldn't bioaccumulate is if it degrades completely before the year's next application....

So, keep your bees off other peoples property. Do you think that just because you have bees you can tell other people how to use their land?

Most farmers tend to rotate the crops grown in a field. So, a field may not have the same pesticides applied to it year after year.

If you are successful in getting neonics banned what is going to replace them? Do you think the carbamates, organophosphates, pyrethrins, etc. of the past are a better option?

Exaggeration to get a discussion started is planting false premisses. The uninformed will take the exaggerations as fact and multiply them. It also detracts from the bigger picture. While neonics have the potential for killing bees no one has linked them to supposed CCD colony deaths. There are other threats to bee colony that them get diminished because people believe the neonics HAS to be the cause.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

soil latency is funny issue. In buried soil that has no biotic effects it takes up to 1,300 days to degrade but in soil exposed to sun and water neonic based chemicals photo-degrade and hydro-degrade with a half life measured in hours (not years). That's one of the little factoids that always seems to get forgotten in the standard sensational articles on neonic pesticides.

So the exposed pesticide degrades rapidly and the entombed pesticide stays resident for long periods of time. Of course I fail to understand how the neonic pesticide buried in the soil will get to the bees in ways where photo-degrading and hydro-degrading wil not occur. all this and the observation observed in the Randy Oliver article linked previously that bees don't much like neonic flavored nectar or pollen and will avoid eating it (when given a choice).

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees

soil latency is funny issue.....

Yes. Sun would work only if it is direct sun - top of the sand's grain would be exposed to sun, the bottom - no. Also, water. I would imagine that water will be where there is no direct sun due to evaporation. So ether sun or water... it means that decomposition on the sun, will be much less that you think. For photochemical decomposition usually water is required. Also, grown plants will block sun on the soil - again, less decomposition. Farmers I guess, turn or mix soil at the end of the season in preparation for spring - it will bury some chemicals... Bees will bring some chemicals inside the hive - it is dark inside and water, perhaps, is limited... beehive itself is a perfect storage for pesticides etc.

All these arguments that nasty chemical(s) regularly spread in environment may be harmless for numerous reasons is just showing how little many people at beesource do care about environment they live...

I really like Bee Whispers sentence:
"In short, we can either be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Choose wisely. "